( 1 ) THE appeal unfolds a sad spectacle. Here is a Magistrate who convicts and an Additional Sessions Judge who acquits but not by cooling into grip with the issues involved. Law has been the first casualty.

( 2 ) HERE is the background.

( 3 ) ON April II, 1983 Constable Bal Roop Singh of the Central Reserve Police Forces was on duty at the Jawabar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. It is alleged that at about 12. 00 hrs. . without having been properly marched out, be, of his own accord, turned back, left the Orderly Room of the Officer Commanding- without even paying due complements to his superior. Not only that he is allegede even shouted at his Company Commander in highly insolent and insubordinate manner and as such, was awarded summary punishment of seven days confinement to line. It is Claimed that soon after the announcement of the punishment he removed his web belt from his waist and started swinging it violently resulting in injuries on the person of one Prem Singh Deputy S. P. A complaint was thus made by one Vinod Seth, Assistant Comdt. before a Metropolitan Magistrate who also happened to be the Assistant Commandant 52 BN of the Central Reserve Police Force. This was on April 15, 1983. Consequent upon the filing of the complaint, a copy thereof was supplied to Constable Bal Roop Singh alongwith copies of other documents and the matter was adjourned to April 16, 1983 for "recording the plea of guilty or not Guilty . " On April 16, the accusations leveled against the accused were "read out and explained in Hindi language," and as the accused pleaded "guilty", be was convicted under Sections 10 (e) and 10 (n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and on April 20, 1983 was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Constable Bal Roop Singh preferred an appeal which was accepted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge. The main thrust of his judgment is that since neither any charge had been framed nor put to the accused, therefore, the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been "adopted" and consequently there was "no alternative but to quash the proceedings. "

( 4 ) IT was then the turn of the State to feel aggrieved. Hence this appeal against acquittal.

( 5 ) WHERE did the learned Magistrate go wrong?

( 6 ) FIRST, he took no serious note of the fact that the accused could not be credited with the skill and knowledge essential to prepare his defence and that he needed the guiding hand of counsel at every step of the. proceeding against him. Unfortunately, the accused had to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. It is difficult to understand bow this was allowed to happen despite the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369 and Khatri v. State of Bihar 1981 Crl. L. J. 470.

( 7 ) IT was observed in Hussainara Khatoon s case:

". . . . . A procedure which does not make available legal services to an accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through the trial without legal assistance, cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, fair and just . "

( 8 ) AND that:

"free legal service is an unalienable element of reasonable, fair and just procedure for without it person suffering from economic or other disabilities would be deprived of the opportunity for securing justice. The right to free legal service is, therefore, clearly an essential, ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. This is a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or-incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so required, provided of